Talk:Kreacher
Dehydration This article says Kreacher drank the potion for Voldemort while storing it... the Horcrux cave article says "Once drunk it induced dehydration. If the drinker still had strength left after consuming the potion, he would be unable to drink water that did not come from the lake" So this would certainly explain his unhealthy looking appearance (although I figured that was only age) but wouldn't he die without being able to drink? Does he have to teleport back to the cave on a regular basis to nourish himself? It seems kind of vague, like is it a one-time thing that you need to drink from the lake and then can go back to drinking normally or must forever only drink from there? It makes me wonder about Dumbledore's final moments too, as clearly he also left the cave. Regulus obviously got caught by the inferi... we know Dumbledore escaped them but I wonder how Kreacher did, I guess by porting out. Ty 05:19, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :I think what the article means is that water cannot be conjured in the horcrux cave. Kreacher should be able drink water at other locations. The whole idea was to force the drinker of the potion to drink from the lake which would trigger the inferi and kill the drink. Thanks, --JKoch (Owl Me!) 05:25, April 7, 2010 (UTC) : :So, If Dumbledore left the horcrux Cave would he be able to conjure water outside and drink it or would he not be able to drink conjured water after he drank the thing? :Also, Regulus drank the potion, why is it there when Dumbledore arrives? Does it refill? :Also, was Dumbledore weakened by both the ring and the drink and if he hadn't got weakened by the ring would he have not suffered as much in the cave?Abrawak 23:41, December 18, 2010 (UTC) : :Kreacher could get out the cave because elf magic is more powerful than regular magic. Speedysnitch 04:15, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :Do you think that his torture caused by the potion may have also have contributed to his sobered personality? Abranon 14:52, February 11, 2012 (UTC) :I think that the other contributors were: Regulus Black's Death, not being able to tell anyone what happened, The black family reaction to this death, living many years alone with the locket (think about how it affected Ron), living many years alone with Walburga's portrait, Sirius Black's cruelty. What do you think? Abranon 14:52, February 11, 2012 (UTC) Kreacher was wizard made... If Kreacher was wizard made how could he have a mother? On the bio thing it said he had a mother. Speedysnitch 04:11, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, I think you're taking the line "Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards" too literally. Dumbledore's not referring to actual physical making, he's just talking about the abuse that Kreacher has been subjected to and its effects on him. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:35, July 14, 2012 (UTC) Plot Hole - Wasn't his existence a warning for Voldemort? When he spent time with the Malfoy Family and Bellatrix Lestrange, wouldn't his existence have warned Voldemort? Wouldn't Voldemort have been worried about his protection of the Horcrux Cave? Any explanation? Abranon 13:17, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Voldemort had so little respect for house elves I don't think he would have been able to tell one apart from the other or paid much attention to their names. (oig) Befriending Kreacher in the movie : Unlike in the book and video game adaption, Kreacher was not given the fake locket by Harry in the first part of the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Not only the gift, but whole story about befriending Kreacher and turning him into true supporter of Harry Potter, was not in the movie at all. Mcepl (talk) 00:16, January 22, 2017 (UTC) Age at Death This -JKR Twitter :I don't think we can take this seriously. JKR was being snarky as someone had accused her of inserting 666 in Harry Potter via Nicolas Flamel's possible age when he died - JKR Flamel Tweet --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:25, February 3, 2017 (UTC) ::Nonetheless, until J.K. Rowling says otherwise, we have to take it as canon per the terms of this wiki. Her word is law. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:56, February 3, 2017 (UTC) I thought Rowling was only joking when she said Kreacher died at the age of 666, because someone had criticized her books in connection to Flamel dying at 666. Can we really take it as canon? -- Kates39 (talk) 11:39, February 3, 2017 (UTC) I agree with Ironyak and Kates39. Rowling was joking! She wasn't making a statement about Kreacher. It is also very strange that he would live so long when the life expectancy of a house elf is 200 years. I think it would be better to put her joke in the Behind the Scenes section until she ever clarifies her joke instead of in an info box where we source it and make it look as though she was serious! HollyRose56 (talk) 19:33, February 11, 2017 (UTC) :: We can take it as canon that Kreacher died after the books, as it was only the age part she was joking about. And, while we're on the subject, House Elf life expectancy is never stated. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:06, February 13, 2017 (UTC) ::: I think you are taking the joke very literally. She was joking! The only thing that is certain and clear as day is that he died after 2 May 1998. Anything pertaining to her joke belongs in the Behind the Scenes section. She never confirmed that Kreacher died after the final scene in the final book and she certainly never confirmed that he died at such an advanced age. HollyRose56 (talk) 20:29, February 13, 2017 (UTC) :::: For the part about her never saying that Kreacher died, I have one response: WROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG. The one thing we were all agreed on -- I believe it was even Ironyak or Rodolphus who added it -- was that Kreacher DID die after the books. The age, sure, she was joking -- but the fact that he did die, we take that as canon. So, Kreacher passed away at a point after September 1st, 2017. And, as the wombat that says it's 200 years; it's only "possible" according to the article. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:46, February 13, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Why do you have to be so rude? She was joking about his death by making a snarky comment about his age. She never confirmed that he died after the final scene in the final book. He didn't die in the books but she never said that he died after the books. The entire interaction was a joke and therefore it is not an appropriate source. Like I said, we can take it as canon that he did die eventually which is why I said to put he died after 2 May 1998. But until we have confirmation as clear as day that Kreacher died after 1 September 2017, it belongs in the Behind the Scenes section. ::::: And since you at least agree she was joking about his age, and everyone else does as well, then you shouldn't be putting the age itself on the page, just that he died after what you believe is 1 September 2017. HollyRose56 (talk) 21:01, February 13, 2017 (UTC) ::::::While she was joking... until she contradicts herself (or says "I was joking, not canon") we have to take the information as canon. Thus, Kreacher died at some point after 1 September, 2017 at the age of 666. The one thing several admins on this wiki are agreed on is that the part about Kreacher dying; that, we can, without a doubt, consider canon.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:29, February 13, 2017 (UTC) :::::There was at least one other instance of Rowling making a statement about canon in jest, which we disregarded (after all, we keep Godric Gryffindor and the Giant Squid articles separate). One could argue, however, that there's clear indication that that one was not remotely intended to be canon (it contradicts canon on several points, and it was said to be "the biggest secret" in Deathly Hallows), while we don't know whether it's the case with the Kreacher Tweet (nothing clearly contradicts elsewhere in canon; house-elf life expectancy is unknown, the "200 years" factoid comes from one of the W.O.M.B.A.T. answers, and we don't have an answer key for it, so it remains only a possibility). :::::I, for one, would keep the "died aged 666" information in the article, until such a time Rowling clarifies this. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 22:40, February 15, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I support this. Just because Rowling created the idea as a joke doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue — I could very well see her canonizing Kreacher's age to spite the 666-obsessed asker, much like the fact that Gilderoy Lockhart's crimes are partially a joke on one of Rowling's friends doesn't make Lockhart's existence in-universe doubtful. Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 14:10, January 28, 2018 (UTC)